Whither the Euro?

Ivo Daalder offers a thoughtful analysis of the European crisis, including his concerns for the post-Cold War peace we now take for granted. One major factor he does not address is the future of the Euro.

The best clue to what happens next in Europe will be what happens to public support of the Euro and of the common economic policies necessary to support it. The Duke has long held the view that the European currency cart was put far, far ahead of the political horse, and that economic strains would eventually tear the EU's fragile political unity to shreds.

If Ivo is right, then the politics are collapsing first, which is even more ominous.

Successful monetary policy requires a fair bit of independence from political pressures, but it also requires significant political cohesion so that the central bank can set a common interest rate across diverse economic regions. In the 1980s, for example, the Federal Reserve was faced simultaneously with an energy bust in Texas and the Massachusetts Miracle. Liquid labor and capital markets help balance such disparities, but a common political identity gives central bankers additional leeway. The risk for the Euro is that Europe has far less liquidity and political cohesion than most other common currency zones.

The European Central Bank is now facing enormous pressure to cut interest rates. With political support already shaky, it will be enormously difficult for the ECB to balance inflationary concerns in one part of Europe against the need for stimulus in another. A significant economic shock in just one region could further fracture political unity and put both Europe and the Euro into a dangerous downward spiral.

New faith-based group

According to ABC's The Note, today the Christian Alliance for Progress will launch "The Movement to Reclaim Christianity and Transform American Politics." It's an intriguing development, one of a few others throughout the country. Anyone have any more information on who is behind this? The Duke is not sure that any one of these groups will accomplish what Sojourners and other long-time laborers in these vineyards have yet to do (namely, create a climate for real political change) but the very fact that more of these groups are coming into being demonstrates widespread unease with the one-sided religious overtones in our nation's political debate.

-- The Duke

The Political Divide

Are we in a unique moment in political history? Why are political parties so polarized? Does Republican strength merely make Democrats bitter, or are Democrats' bitter attacks founded in fact -- or rather, the Republicans disregard for facts?

The New Donkey says ...

"We haven't really seen anything like this in recent U.S. political history, and that's why Democrats have to not only fight these people, but understand and outsmart them. The stakes are getting higher every day."

In my view, Democrats are experiencing the frustration many Republicans experienced in the early 90s when folks like Ed helped Clinton steal lots of "Republican" issues and redefine them as part of a progressive agenda. The Sui Generis part didn't start with Bush, it started with Gingrich and Delay's response to Clinton. They couldn't stand the fact that he outsmarted them, and so resorted to name-calling every Democrat a lying scoundrel. They couldn't attack the policy, so they attacked the person. And in many cases, the only way to attack the person was to distort the facts.

The politics of personal destruction have morphed into the politics of societal destruction -- they don't care what they take down with them, so long as they win.

If Democrats focus on good policy and factual argument, we can win a sustainable victory. But if we fall into the trap of being provoked by what Ed correctly identifies as deliberate Rovian insultswe will make the same mistakes.

There is one lesson to learn from the Republican response to Clinton's victories -- they never ate their young. You never saw Republican leaders vilify Bush I or Dole or Kemp as incompetent losers, but that's exactly what Democrats of all stripes do to their primary and general election also-rans (see Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, even Dean).

Two Ostriches Clash

"Should we stay or should we go?" is the clash of the day on Iraq.* The Economist quite rightly points out that "ostriches exist on both sides of this debate". [link$] The short supply of facts paves the way for wishful thinking, and one yearns for more hard evidence.

The Duke is attracted to the argument that

"the insurgency is driven by a simple hatred of foreign military occupation, the departure of the Americans might douse much of the fire. The withdrawal of their protector might compel the Shias and Kurds to show more generosity to the anxious Sunnis."

A sudden withdrawal, on the other hand, could be seen as a victory for the insurgents, strengthening their recruiting and motivating a broader struggle. This question of the pragmatic effect of a U.S. withdrawal -- is Iraq better off with us, or without us -- is a question that those arguing for and against withdrawal must answer with more evidence.

The Economist's account($) of American success in Tal Afar provides evidence in support of more troops -- flooding the region with the overwhelming force of a 4,000-strong cavalry unit not only created security, it led to trust and better intelligence among the populace. It is such examples of concrete progress that are more compelling to me than the ominous domino theory that the Administration relies upon, and that the Economist ultimately parrots:

Once they believed they had cast out the Americans, the Iraqi jihadis would doubtless copy those who pushed the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, and celebrated by exporting their struggle to the Middle East, North Africa, Kashmir, the Balkans and, on September 11th 2001, to the United States as well. In short, an American departure might well placate Muslim sentiment as a whole but at the same time embolden the groups who have declared war not only on “Jews and Crusaders” but also on secular regimes in Muslim lands around the world.

The parallels to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan are less fitting than the parallels to Southeast Asia. This "Iraq as regional example" argument will fail miserably without more examples of success in the villages and neighborhoods. Let's pray that the American people start demanding more facts and less rhetoric.

Consistent Iraq criticism

Public opinion is mounting against Bush's Iraq policy, and some Administration critics are calling for outright withdrawal. Before Bush critics rush for the exits, we should recall that what is happening in Iraq today is exactly the outcome we predicted for a hasty invasion with shallow international support and fuzzy objectives. Is a hasty withdrawal with shallow international support and fuzzy objectives any more likely to be in America's national security interest? Of course not.

The Duke argued before the war that the United States should build a strong international coalition with clearly defined objectives and the resources necessary to achieve them. That's still the right approach. But Democrats are beginning to sound a lot like Trent Lott and Tom Delay criticizing Clinton's policy in the Balkans, driven more by politics than by our national interest.

Our national interest lies with the Iraqi leaders who are now struggling to write a constitution. Tom Friedman offers a note of caution:

Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to the death those who don't.

Doubling American boots on the ground might be political suicide now, but a stronger coalition force would help stabilize a fragile situation and make Americans on the ground safer. The great tragedy of Bush's Iraq policy is that he squandered America's willingness to sacrifice too early in the game. By failing to work with our allies as true partners (as Clinton did in the Balkans, and as Bush I did in 1990-91), our allies don't "own" the problem and they are finding it easier to walk away. The result is that Americans are paying most of the price, and it shows in the polls. My hope is that it is not too late to build support at home and abroad for a long-term solution that honors the lives already lost.

They'll know we are Christians ...

There's a great gospel refrain , "Yes they'll know we are Christians by our love." The Duke hummed a few bars while reading the raging debate over at TPMcafe among some centrists and liberals who are trying to decide whether they are embarassed to call themselves Christians.

Even Ed Kilgore said

I can barely comprehend the views of "Bible-based" evangelical Protestants who somehow think the primary message of Scripture in our time is to ban abortion, proscribe homosexuality, put women back "in their place," support state-sponsored religious displays, and identify with the foreign policy of the United States as carried out by George W. Bush.

This is a rare oversimplification by the Duke's friend Mr. Kilgore. As one whose large extended family includes several evangelical ministers, seminary professors, and even a church motto that reads "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible", the Duke has a pretty good understanding of the evangelical community. The stereotypical "evangelical" worldview above is vastly oversimplified, and -- frankly -- a bit insulting.

There are certain evangelical "leaders" who espouse this simple platform, but more often than not those "leaders" are more like political pundits than faith community leaders. The real leaders and rank-and-file members of the evangelical community are more tolerant and care about a much wider variety of issues than the pundits would have you believe. But because most national Democrats have failed to speak in a language that resonates with evangelicals, the carefully crafted national Republican political message is the only political message that gets through.

Big national issues are a lot less important to a congregation struggling to help its members deal with job losses, crushing health care bills, struggling schools, substance abuse, and the other challenges of raw humanity. But since no one has bothered to explain in evangelical terms how national policy changes can help families with these "kitchen table" issues, the conservative political pundits have filled the vacuum.

How progressives should do this is a post for another day. But the only reason progressive Christians should be embarrassed is if they take the pundits' bait and allow conservative political hacks to speak for all Christians. In fact, if progressives seek common ground with evangelicals and reach out with compassion, tolerance, and yes-- love -- they'll know we are Christians, and it won't matter what the pundits say.

Out of Iraq?

Ivo Daalder wonders why the Bush Administration seems so disconnected from American public opinion on Iraq. Some readers argue for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, others say that would be abandoning an important Democratic movement. While the Duke believes President Bush has blundered badly in Iraq (and the Duke would make many, many changes), he has not heard a convincing, realistic alternative to staying the course. The Duke posted this reply:

This debate raises an interesting question from the domestic policy discussion areas: Is it better to oppose without offering concrete alternatives, thereby maintaining unity, or is it better to propose constructive alternatives through messy internal debate. The Duke is sympathetic to the "unity" of opposition on domestic issues, but he would argue -- particularly with regard to Iraq -- that singlemindedness becomes dangerous simplemindedness when it comes to foreign policy.

Why?

• First, it is more difficult to predict foreign policy outcomes. For example, we know the consequences of unified opposition to changing Social Security (precious little for decades). But our level of certainty for any particular Iraq strategy is much, much lower. The complexity of foreign policy predictions creates significant risks for "simple opposition", both the risk of being wrong and the risk of failing to create better proposals because debate was stifled.
  
• Second, it is harder to build public support for foreign policy than domestic policy. If you win the debate, you might get stuck with foreign policy position that is unworkable. The public has much less familiarity with foreign policy than, say, health care or education, and the public attention span is much shorter when it comes to foreign policy. This "public support risk" is dangerous because when Democrats return to power, there will be much less public support for anything approaching a sustainable alternative. Frankly, a demagoguic foreign policy (on the left or the right) is much more worrisome to the Duke than demogoguery on issues like taxes, abortion, or gay marriage.

Having said all of that, the Duke does not (yet) have a comprehensive proposal on Iraq. However, he is convinced that those arguing for a "withdrawal trigger" place too little weight on the significant national security interest in a stable Iraq.

New Labor

Josh Marshall asks if a strong labor movement is a prerequisite for progressive politics. The Duke asks a higher-level question -- how can labor be strong in today's global economy? The first challenge is to figure out how to unify workers across jobs, locations, and industries. Since people now change jobs roughly 10 times in a career, the age of the 30-year gold watch is fast disappearing. Imagine the power of a labor movement that was able to secure portable health care, portable pensions, and portable worker safety standards, not just from one individual's job to job, but across industries and even national boundaries. The old organizing mechanism of company or plant votes is probably not the way to achieve that. (The Duke is pro-business, pro-trade, and pro-technology, but also pro-labor -- the National Labor Relations Board and the rules governing union elections have been so gutted that it is both hard to organize and -- even worse -- hard for rank-and-file members to hold union leadership accountable).

The Duke is intrigued by the debate between AFL-CIO head John Sweeney and Andy Stern of the SEIU, but they are only scratching the surface. The Duke predicts that -- without more rapid change -- a new labor movement will arise completely outside of the boundaries of the AFL-CIO, and it may not even call itself labor.

Industrial vs. Rural economics

The Duke has enjoyed exploring TPMCafe, which blends several thoughtful bloggers with a lot of public comments pages. Below are excerpts from a good post by Ed Kilgore of NewDonkey responding to a Mark Schmitt post, and The Duke's comments.

[Mark Schmitt said] "Again and again, we have traded, voluntarily or involuntarily, the security of the 1950s middle class for greater opportunity, but also greater risk." This axiom captures a major source of the communications breakdown that has long affected discussions between Democrats from different regions and different social backgrounds. It took me a while to figure this out, but after wondering for years about the strong resistance of many traditional Democrats from the midwest and northeast to economic change, I finally began to understand that the 1950s and 1960s represented for them a sort of social democratic "golden age." Precisely because the South only marginally enjoyed the fruits of the industrial age, southerners, and particularly rural southerners, have a peculiar openness to post-industrial economic opportunities and policies. ...

I make this point for two reasons: (1) I think it's important to understand why the politics of social-democratic nostalgia doesn't work very well in less-industrial parts of the country; and (2) we all need to get over the stereotype that "information-age" economic strategies, including a focus on technology, training, and quality of life, are just a latte-class relic of the 90s tech boom that we should now acknowledge as a partial betrayal of the economic interests of working Americans.

Ed makes a good point that the economic benefits championed by Democrats don't resonate well in non-industrial areas (in not just the South, but in small towns in the midwest and most of the West). The critics of this post are missing the point -- it's not that these economic policies won't benefit the South, but that Democrats frequently fail to communicate economic policies in a way that resonates with folks who have not experienced the benefits the way the industrial working class has.

Ed's saying that the politics don't work well, he's not disagreeing with the objectives of good jobs, health care, and a secure retirement.

I would take the point a step further. Many Democrats' failure to articulate an economic message that resonates in these communities makes it that much more difficult to gain the trust of voters on social issues. Clinton succeeded because people felt like he was "one of us", and we gave him the benefit of the doubt on social issues because he was watching out for our pocketbook.

Ed's second point about information technology is right on target. Mark Warner and other successful southern Democrats have found a way to use government to promote the interests of the working class that resonates in less industrialized areas. It's not "anti-government", as some critics here would have you believe, it's more effectively targeting government to the needs of the people.